Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 08, 2017

06/08 Links Pt2: Why The Jewish Left Laments The Six-Day War; the K.G.B. Started the War That Changed the Middle East

From Ian:

David Collier: ‘The only good Jew is a dead Jew’ (the Suarez – Barkan threshold)

‘The only good Jew is a dead Jew’. A horrific statement not so openly suggested in Europe or the USA in 2017. In reality, this line is actually being propagated in almost every university campus in the west. Yes, it is camouflaged, but do not let that distract us from the sickening message underneath. Let me explain.
Thomas Suarez recently published a work of revisionist history titled ‘State of Terror’. What Suarez did is simple. He engaged in research using the British archives in Kew as a way of proving what he already believed, that Israel is a nasty little state created by nasty people, who did awful things. With a highly distorted personal radar, careful document selection, and an unerring ability to misinterpret intentions, Suarez produced a piece of writing far removed from both historicity and context.

Because therein lies the rub, part of the missing context of the book is the Holocaust.
When I pointed this out on Twitter, I received a response from anti-Zionist Jew and founder of ‘Boycott from within’ Ronnie Barkan:

It is a stock response from the Jewish anti-Zionist camp. Telling me, a Zionist, not to mix Zionism with being Jewish. To add insult to injury, Barkan even called me an antisemite. Perhaps this empty rhetoric plays well to antisemites and anti-Israel activists in 2017, although I find the argument highly offensive. He is, like Suarez, suggesting ‘the only good Jew is a dead Jew’.

Tunisian Court Suspends 'Wonder Woman' Viewings Due To Lawsuit Calling Gal Gadot A 'Champion Zionist'

Tunisia is the latest country to ban the hit movie Wonder Woman because they don't like that the star of the movie is an Israeli.
According to Variety, all viewings of the film in the country were blocked on Monday when Tunisia's Young Lawyers Association filed a lawsuit against Wonder Woman. The association cited the star of the movie, Gal Gadot, as being Israeli, her vocal support for Israel during the 2014 conflict with Hamas, and her prior service in the Israeli military, as reasons to block the movie from being shown in the country. The lawsuit also refers to Gadot as a "champion Zionist."
The Tunisian court suspended any future showings of Wonder Woman until the lawsuit is resolved, including a Wednesday premiere in 3D that 237 people were planning to attend, according to a Facebook event page.
Tunisia is not the only country to suspend viewings of Wonder Woman; Lebanon has banned the film altogether due to pressure from the Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel in Lebanon. Rana Masri, an organization for the group, told the Associated Press that the main reason for their opposition to the movie was the fact that Gadot is Israeli.
"We don’t distinguish between a good Israeli and a bad Israeli," Masi said.

ICRC: Missing Israeli nationals: Hamas must abide by international humanitarian law

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) urges the Hamas authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law to the five Israeli nationals who went missing in Gaza between July 2014 and 2016, and remain unaccounted for.
Missing persons, regardless of their status – fallen or captured soldiers during fighting, or civilians taken captive by an adverse party – are protected by humanitarian law. They and their families must be shown due regard under the law.
"Persons captured alive must be accounted for and treated humanely. Human remains, too, must be handled with dignity, identified and returned to the families concerned," said Jacques de Maio, the head of the ICRC's delegation in Israel and the occupied territories. "These are among the most widely accepted rules of warfare."
The ICRC has consistently reminded the Hamas authorities, at the highest level, of their legal and humanitarian obligations, and told them that intentionally withholding information about missing persons is acting in violation of humanitarian law.

Palestinians join anti-Qatar bandwagon, claim it is pro-Israel

After many Arab nations cut off or downgraded ties with Qatar for its allegedly pro-Iran stance, the Palestinian leaders are jumping on the bandwagon - but with a twist.

An essay by Bakr Abu Bakr was published in many Palestinian news sites yesterday, and also in the official Fatah Facebook page, where it described Qatar as a two-faced, scheming nation with close ties to Israel and terrorist groups in Iraq as well as Hamas. Clearly Mahmoud Abbas' regime is trying to paint itself as a team player but also trying to add an anti-Israel angle while pushing the anti-Hamas narrative as well.

The ironic thing is that Qatar has traditionally tried to stay in everyone's good graces, a tightrope act that is near impossible in the volatile region.

And this essay, which reflects the position of the PA, is doing the same.

Because there is one word missing from this essay: Iran.

The major reason that the Saudis led the anti-Qatar initiative is because of Qatar's ties with Iran. But the PA does not want to antagonize Iran, just like Qatar.

So instead the PA pretends to be gung-ho about being against Qatar.

But the Arab states have noticed and will continue to notice the PA's ambivalent attitude towards Iran, and they are keeping tabs on every statement and omission in how Abbas acts.

Because the PA could easily find itself to be the next Qatar.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

If you haven’t heard about Roy Larner yet, he’s the British football fan that is being called a hero for his actions last week at the Borough Market near London Bridge. When three terrorists entered the Black and Blue Steakhouse waving knives and shouting “Islam! Islam!” Larner charged them, throwing stools and glasses and swinging at them with his fists. Ultimately they left the restaurant, with Larner in pursuit and bleeding from at least 8 stab wounds (he is presently recovering in hospital). He may have saved numerous lives by his actions.

Larner wasn’t the only unarmed civilian or police officer that fought with the terrorists, who killed 7 and injured 48 before they were finally and permanently stopped by armed police. But what seems to have placed Larner in the eye of the media is what he said to the terrorists:

“I took a few steps towards them and said, ‘F*** you, I’m Millwall’. So they started attacking me.”
Mr Larner added: “I stood in front of them trying to fight them off. Everyone else ran to the back.
“I was on my own against all three of them, that’s why I got hurt so much.
“It was just me, trying to grab them with my bare hands and hold on. I was swinging.
“I got stabbed and sliced eight times. They got me in my head, chest and both hands. There was blood everywhere.
“They were saying, ‘Islam, Islam!’. I said again, ‘F*** you, I’m Millwall!’

Millwall is a football club in South London whose fans are known for their pugnacity, a nicer word than “hooliganism,” of which they are sometimes accused.

On Good Morning Britain, presenter Piers Morgan, a fan of rival London club Arsenal, told viewers: “Millwall fans get a very bad rap, a lot of it very deserved, but there are times when you really want a lot of Millwall fans, and that was one of them.”

So, do I think that the solution to Islamic terrorism is to deputize or even arm English football fans? Not necessarily, although civilian response to terrorism has sometimes saved the day here in Israel. But there is an important clue in Larner’s statement to the terrorists.

“I’m Millwall,” he said. Or in other words, I’m from here, standing my ground and protecting my people on my land. Don’t come in here with your knives and your Islam crap, not on my home turf.

Part of what motivated Roy Larner to risk his own life and limb, perhaps in addition to the “four or five pints” he admits to having consumed, was the very basic human drive to defend one’s home and family against foreign invaders; the tribal instinct, so disapproved of by the post-modern John Lennon fans who moved to the back of the restaurant when Roy confronted the terrorists.

As long as Western society tries to suppress the tribal instinct, which provides the emotional drive behind nationalism, patriotism and national solidarity, we will continue to be defeated and humiliated by the Islamic jihad, which is also strongly tribal (although it sees itself as a conqueror rather than a defender).

So-called “populist” leaders, like Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Donald Trump and others, have in common an appeal to tribal feelings, regardless of the details of their programs. And one of the reasons people find them attractive at this historical moment is because they see it as a powerful response to the threat of the Islamic jihad against the West.

In order to protect herself from the jihad, Britain (and the rest of Europe and ultimately the US) will have to adopt tribalist policies, such as limiting immigration from significantly different cultures – in this case, Muslim ones – and perhaps expelling the known bad actors among imams, activists and politicians. Maybe the most radical mosques should be closed altogether. The UK should probably arm all of its police officers, too. But in the end, no number of police on the street, armed or not, can prevent terrorism, only respond to it more quickly. Only the elimination of potential terrorists from the population can actually end it.

Here in Israel one often sees T-shirts with nonsensical, silly or embarrassing things written on them in “English.” Today we saw one that made a lot of sense, and I think Roy Larner would agree. It read:

DEFEND YOUR TURF

Have another pint or five, Roy. You’ve certainly earned it.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/08 Links Pt1: 50 Years of Palestinian Rejection; Phillips: What must be done to stop terror in Londonistan

From Ian:

Evelyn Gordon: 50 Years of Palestinian Rejection

In other words, there’s one very simple reason why Israel still controls the West Bank: The Palestinians have consistently refused repeated offers to give it to them.
But there’s an important supporting reason as well: Palestinians feel they can get away with serial rejectionism because the world always responds by blaming Israel, as the Obama Administration did.
Addressing the Senate in April 2014, for instance, Kerry famously declared that Israel’s announcement of new construction in Jerusalem had caused the talks to go “poof,” carefully neglecting to mention that by this point, the talks were dead anyway since Abbas had already rejected the administration’s best offer. The excuses administration officials gave Tibon were equally ridiculous. Abbas, they said, was “disappointed” that Netanyahu had delayed releasing some two dozen Palestinian prisoners—as if that were ample grounds for rejecting an offer of statehood. They also said Abbas wasn’t sure Obama could “deliver” Netanyahu. But Netanyahu said yes to the February proposal without being sure Obama could deliver Abbas – which it turns out he couldn’t; why was it unreasonable to expect Abbas to go out on a similar limb?
The problem isn’t just Palestinian rejectionism. It’s that the rest of the world actually encourages this rejectionism by ensuring that the diplomatic price is always paid by Israel, and never the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians have quite reasonably concluded that they can play this game ad infinitum, until the world eventually pressures Israel to accept even those Palestinian demands that would entail committing national suicide, like the “right of return.”
If the Palestinians actually wanted peace, they’d do a deal regardless of how the rest of the world behaved. If the world behaved differently, the Palestinians might eventually conclude that a deal was in their interests. But as long as neither of these two conditions is met, there’s every reason to think that in another 50 years, we’ll be reading more hand-wringing articles about why Israel still controls the West Bank.

PMW: Abbas appointment of murderer to Fatah Central Committee means salaries to terrorists will not stop

Despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority is being pressured by the international community to stop glorifying murderers and stop paying salaries to terrorists, Abbas and the Fatah Movement recently appointed imprisoned murderer Karim Younes as member of Fatah's Central Committee, as documented by Palestinian Media Watch.
Now Fatah official Jamal Muhaisen has explained that the appointment is in fact a message to all those pressuring the PA, and who call for a stop of the terrorist salaries:
"The value of the decision lies in the fact that it was made at a time when pressures are being applied to [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas to stop the prisoners and Martyrs' salaries (rawatib). The selection of the most veteran prisoner in the prisons [Karim Younes] as a member of the [Fatah] Central Committee is a message to them that they should not think that one day the prisoners or Martyrs' salaries will be stopped."
[Falestinona, the website of Fatah's Information and Culture Commission in Lebanon, May 31, 2017]
Muhaisen, who is also a member of Fatah's Central Committee, justified the salaries, calling the imprisoned terrorists "our pride and the knights of the Palestinian people," and reiterated the Palestinians' claim that international bodies have affirmed the Palestinians' right to use "all means" in the fight against Israel. A term Palestinians interpret to permit the use of violence and terror:
"This is because the decisions of the international bodies permit the Palestinian people and every people in the world to fight with all means (i.e., term used by Palestinians, which also refers to the use of violence) against the occupation, and our prisoners and Martyrs are our pride and the knights of the Palestinian people, and not terrorists."

PMW: Fatah spokesman presents Protocols of the Elders of Zion as authentic document

In an interview on official Palestinian Authority TV, a Fatah spokesman cited the Antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic source followed by Israel. Fatah spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi stated that The Protocols instructs "the Zionists" to create extreme Islamic religious streams in order to cause internal disputes among the Arabs. This would keep the Arab regimes occupied and prevent them from dealing with important issues like "arming [themselves] against the enemy":
Fatah Spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi: "The second protocol of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion says: Extremist [Islamic] religious streams must be created, as a complete contrast to the ruling regime [in Arab countries], regardless of which regime it is - be it national, Arab, secular, communist, or Marxist - so that the priorities of these regimes will change in a manner that fits the Zionists. Instead of dealing with health, education, society, and arming [themselves] against the enemy - they will be dealing with internal disputes."
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, April 16, 2017]
Palestinian Media Watch has exposed that Palestinians present The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic document. In fact, The Protocols is an antisemitic forgery prepared by the Russian secret police describing how Jews allegedly plan to subjugate the world under Jewish rule. It was published in Russia in 1903 and translated into multiple languages. In 1921, The Protocols was conclusively exposed as a false document.

Fatah presents The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as authentic Jewish document

This is worth reading.

Remarks at the Graduate Institute of Geneva on “A Place for Conscience: the Future of the United States in the Human Rights Council”

Ambassador Nikki Haley
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
Geneva, Switzerland

June 6, 2017

AS DELIVERED

I’d like to thank the Graduate Institute and for everyone that came today. Before we get started, I think it’s important that we remember the senseless lives that were lost in London. The United States stands strongly with London with these careless acts and we are committed to helping fight terrorism as it continues to go forward.

The first chairman of the United Nations organization dedicated entirely to human rights was a chairwoman.

Eleanor Roosevelt was elected to head the Human Rights Commission when it first met in January, 1947. She was a natural choice. Mrs. Roosevelt was already well known for her heartfelt advocacy for universal human rights.

She was a woman of deep faith. Her nightly prayer asked God to quote, “make us sure of the good we cannot see, and of the hidden good in the world.” Eleanor Roosevelt was an idealist. But she was no pushover.

The first item on the Commission’s agenda was drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. During the debate, the United States and the Soviet Union clashed repeatedly in some of the opening skirmishes of the Cold War.

The Soviet delegate taunted Mrs. Roosevelt: How could the United States call itself a champion of human rights when African Americans were still discriminated against? To which Mrs. Roosevelt acknowledged that yes, the United States still had problems, and progress was being made.

And then she proposed a deal that quieted the Soviet delegate: She said the Soviets could send a delegation to observe the United States – if the United States could do the same to the Soviet Union.

Of course, the Soviets never did and never would give free reign to a U.S. delegation. She was making a point. She was calling out a fellow commission member for using human rights as a cover for its political agenda.

Mrs. Roosevelt’s vision of the Human Rights Commission was bigger than any one country. She saw the Commission as a place for conscience, not politics. She knew that if it was allowed to become a forum for hypocrisy and political point-scoring, it would do more to hurt the cause of human rights than to help it.

My country has a unique beginning, founded on human rights, holding self-evident the truth that all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course America did not invent these rights – God did. Simply by our birth, human beings are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. These rights belong to all of us. They are not the gift of any government. They cannot legitimately be taken away by any government.

The American idea is that government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Government should secure our rights, not violate them.

We continue striving to achieve this principle through self-government, using elections and the rule of law to hold our leaders accountable. The inherent dignity of the individual is not secured by words but by actions. This is the standard by which we judge ourselves as a nation – and by which we invite others to judge us as well.

It is this commitment to the equal worth of all human beings that leads the United States to support universal human rights. And of course we are not alone. There are many other nations, both on the Council and off, that affirm universal human rights and act to protect and extend them.

When the Human Rights Council has acted with clarity and integrity, it has advanced the cause of human rights. It has brought the names of prisoners of conscience to international prominence and given voice to the voiceless.

At times, the Council has placed a spotlight on individual country violators and spurred action, including convening emergency sessions to address the war crimes being committed by the Assad regime in Syria. The Council’s Commission of Inquiry on North Korea led to the Security Council action on human rights abuses there.

The Council is at its best when it is calling out human rights violators and abuses, and provoking positive action. It changes lives. It pushes back against the tide of cynicism that is building in our world. And it reassures us that it deserves our continued investment of time and treasure.

But there is a truth that must be acknowledged by anyone who cares about human rights: When the Council fails to act properly – when it fails to act at all – it undermines its own credibility and the cause of human rights. It leaves the most vulnerable to suffer and die. It fuels the cynical belief that countries cannot put aside self-interest and cooperate on behalf of human dignity. It re-enforces our growing suspicion that the Human Rights Council is not a good investment of our time, money, and national prestige.

Tragically, we’ve been down this road before.

In 2005, then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan disbanded the precursor to the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Commission. He blamed what he called its “credibility deficit.” The description was well-earned.

Many of the world’s worst human rights offenders were elected to the seats on the Commission. They used those positions, not to advance human rights, but to shield themselves from criticism or to criticize others.

In short, the Commission had lost the world’s trust. It had stained and setback the cause of human rights.

These problems were supposed to have been fixed when the new Council was formed. Sadly, the case against the Human Rights Council today looks an awful lot like the case against the discredited Human Rights Commission over a decade ago.

Once again, over half the current member countries fail to meet basic human rights standards as measured by Freedom House.

Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, China, Burundi, and Saudi Arabia occupy positions that obligate them to, in the words of the resolution that created the Human Rights Council, “uphold the highest standards” of human rights. They clearly do not uphold those highest standards.

And once again, as with the disgraced and disbanded Human Rights Commission, the victims of the world’s most egregious human rights violations are too often ignored by the very organization that is supposed to protect them.

In Venezuela, the government has systematically destroyed civil society through arbitrary detention, torture, and blatant violations of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Children are starving to death. Mothers dig through trash cans to feed their families. This is a crisis that has been 18 years in the making. The Venezuelan people have been robbed of their human rights.

And yet, not once has the Human Rights Council seen fit to condemn Venezuela. Quite the contrary – the Council chose to showcase Venezuela’s work while protestors were being beaten in the streets. Just two years ago, President Maduro was invited to address the Council, just weeks after Venezuela was re-elected as a member.

In Cuba, the government continues to arrest and detain critics and human rights advocates. The government strictly controls the media and severely restricts the Cuban people’s access to the internet. Political prisoners by the thousands continue to sit in Cuban jails. Yet Cuba has never been condemned by the Human Rights Council. It, too, is a member country.

In fact, Cuba uses its membership in the Council as proof that it is a supporter of human rights, instead of a violator that it is. The Cuban deputy foreign minister called Cuba’s 2016 re-election to the Human Rights Council, “irrefutable evidence of Cuba’s historic prestige in the promotion and protection of all human rights for Cubans.”

This is a reversal of the truth that would make George Orwell blush.

The list goes on.

In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea. This illegal occupation resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and injuries as well as arbitrary detentions. No special meeting of the Human Rights Council was called, and the abuses continue to mount.

Robert Mugabe continues his decades-long campaign of repression in Zimbabwe. Nothing from Geneva. Instead, human rights violators Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, took advantage of a Council review to commend Mugabe’s so-called “promotion and protection of human rights.”

The Human Rights Council has been given a great responsibility. It has been charged with using the moral power of universal human rights to be the world’s advocate for the most vulnerable among us. Judged by this basic standard, the Human Rights Council has failed.

In case after case, it has been a forum for politics, hypocrisy, and evasion – not the forum for conscience that its founders envisioned. It has become a place for political manipulation, rather than the promotion of universal values. Those who cannot defend themselves turn to this Council for hope but are too often disappointed by inaction.

Once again, the world’s foremost human rights body has tarnished the cause of human rights. The United Nations must now act to reclaim the legitimacy of universal human dignity.

For all of us, this is an urgent ask. Human rights are central to the mission of the United Nations. Not only are they the right thing to do, they’re the smart thing to do.

I dedicated the U.S. presidency of the Security Council in April to making the connection between human rights and peace and security.

This is a cause that is bigger than any one organization. If the Human Rights Council is going to be an organization we entrust to protect and promote human rights, it must change. If it fails to change, then we must pursue the advancement of human rights outside of the Council.

America does not seek to leave the Human Rights Council. We seek to reestablish the Council’s legitimacy.

There are a couple of critically necessary changes.

First, the UN must act to keep the worst human rights abusers from obtaining seats on the Council. As it stands, elections for membership to the Council are over before the voting even begins. Regional blocs nominate slates of pre-determined candidates that never face any competition for votes.

No competition means no scrutiny of candidates’ human rights records. We must change the elections so countries are forced to make the case for membership based on their records, not on their promises.

Selection of members must occur out in the open for all to see. The secret ballot must be replaced with open voting. Countries that are willing to support human rights violators to serve on the Human Rights Council must be willing to show their faces. They know who they are. It’s time for the world to know who they are.

Second, the Council’s Agenda Item Seven must be removed. This, of course, is the scandalous provision that singles out Israel for automatic criticism. There is no legitimate human rights reason for this agenda item to exist. It is the central flaw that turns the Human Rights Council from an organization that can be a force for universal good, into an organization that is overwhelmed by a political agenda.

Since its creation, the Council has passed more than 70 resolutions targeting Israel. It has passed just seven on Iran. This relentless, pathological campaign against a country that actually has a strong human rights record makes a mockery not of Israel, but of the Council itself.

The Council’s effort to create a database designed to shame companies for doing business in Israeli controlled areas is just the latest in this long line of shameful actions.

Blacklisting companies without even looking at their employment practices or their contributions to local empowerment, but rather based entirely on their location in areas of conflict is contrary to the laws of international trade and to any reasonable definition of human rights. It is an attempt to provide an international stamp of approval to the anti-Semitic BDS movement. It must be rejected.

Getting rid of Agenda Item Seven would not give Israel preferential treatment. Claims against Israel could still be brought under Agenda Item Four, just as claims can be brought there against any other country. Rather, removal of Item Seven would put all countries on equal footing.

The Council is no more justified in having a separate agenda item on Israel than it is on having one for the United States, or Canada, or France, or the United Kingdom. More appropriate would be to have an agenda item on North Korea, Iran, and Syria, the world’s leading violators of human rights.

These changes are the minimum necessary to resuscitate the Council as a respected advocate of universal human rights.

For our part, the United States will not sit quietly while this body, supposedly dedicated to human rights, continues to damage the cause of human rights.

In the end, no speech and no structural reforms will save the members of the Human Rights Council from themselves. If they continue to put politics ahead of human rights, they will continue to damage the cause that they supposedly serve.

All those years ago, Mrs. Roosevelt understood this. She was engaged in building an institution to bring the nations of the world together to protect the most vulnerable. But she knew the good she was seeking would not come from that institution, but from the hearts of men and women who would work in it. Every night, she prayed: “Save us from ourselves and show us a vision of a world made new.”

I believe that vision is still achievable. I believe we can come together. I know there are many who share the belief.

The status quo is not acceptable. It is not a place for countries who champion human rights.

I call on all likeminded countries to join in making the Human Rights Council reach its intended purpose.

Let the world be on notice: We will never give up the cause of universal human rights. Whether it’s here, or in other venues, we will continue this fight.

Thank you.

(h/t David G)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

More photos of Muslim neglect of their "third holiest site" in 1967

The Washington Post has a story about a young American reporter in Jerusalem who witnessed Israel's capture of the Temple Mount.

The photos accompanying the article are striking.

The first one shows, as we have noted many times, the weeds sprouting through the plaza in front of the Dome of the Rock that shows how neglected the "Haram al-Sharif" was when Muslims had exclusive control.

The other one compares what a section of the Temple Mount looked like when Israeli soldiers used it to hold some Jordanian soldiers, and compares it to what it looks like today:

At the time, under Muslim rule, is was a bare area. Today, it is filled with grass and trees.

The Washington Post cannot resist some revisionist history in the caption of these two photos:

"Palestinian prisoners of war?" Did they have an army we are not aware of?

And I wonder: What is the fourth holiest site in Islam, and is it overgrown with weeds as well?

I've seen at least three answers to that question: the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus , the Eyup Sultan Mosque in Istanbul and the Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia, all of which are/were kept in pristine condition (the Damascus mosque was destroyed in 2013.

Funny how the "third holiest site" was kept in such terrible condition when the fourth, fifth and sixth had been lovingly taken care of.

(h/t Irene)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Haaretz details two American initiatives to forge a peace plan under the Obama administration.

Once again, it shows that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the Likud government that is routinely described as "the most right wing government in Israeli history" was willing (for whatever reason) to accept a far-ranging and potentially self-damaging "peace" plan with the Palestinians - and the "moderate" Palestinian Authority said no.

Here is Haaretz' summary of its very detailed reporting.

If Haaretz cannot find anything bad to say about Netanyahu's position and cannot find anything flexible about Abbas' position, that is all the proof you need to know who wants peace and who prefers the status quo.

When Kerry met Abbas in Paris on February 19, 2014 and presented him with this version of the framework accord, the Palestinian president responded with anger and disappointment. Former U.S. officials say his biggest concern was with how the document addressed Jerusalem. The weak wording on this paramount issue was a nonstarter for him.
As a result of Abbas’ reaction, the U.S. team realized that in order to get a “yes” from the Palestinian president, they would have to change some parts of the framework document. The challenge was how to do it without losing Netanyahu, who had verbally expressed his openness toward the February version of the document (although he never accepted it in writing).
Abbas was scheduled to meet President Barack Obama in the White House on March 16, 2014 – less than a month after his dinner with Kerry in Paris. Ahead of that meeting, the U.S. peace team crafted an updated version of the framework, which, unlike the February document, was not pre-negotiated with the Israelis. The result was a different document, one that on a number of issues was tilted more toward the Palestinians.
After failing to first negotiate a document with Netanyahu and then get a “yes” from Abbas, the Americans now wanted to test the opposite option: Getting the Palestinian leader to agree to a document on the core issues, and then take it back to Netanyahu. But Abbas didn’t accept Obama’s framework document. He didn’t reject it, though – he simply didn’t respond.The Obama administration was disappointed and frustrated by his reaction. Obama asked Abbas to “see the big picture” instead of squabbling with “this or that detail” – to no avail. A month later, Kerry’s peace talks collapsed.

Haaretz tries to spin this as best it can to fits its narrative, saying that Netanyahu has lied to the public about the extent of what he was willing to give up for peace and trying to justify Abbas' rejection of the plans.

But the facts that they uncovered cannot be spun: the "moderate" Palestinians have twice again rejected formulas for peace while Israel has shown amazing flexibility to end the conflict.

There are scores of articles this week in major media decrying "50 years of occupation" - but the fact is that Israeli leaders, both left and right, have proposed and accepted peace deals throughout the entire five decades which would end Israeli rule over disputed territories, and Palestinians have rejected every single one either directly or indirectly.

1967, 2000, 2001, 2008, and now 2014. How many times does this need to occur before the world sees the truth?

John Kerry knew this more than anyone - and yet in December gave a speech that blamed Israel alone for failure of peace in the Middle East.

The anti-Israel narrative will not be scratched by the supposed "peaceniks" who will attack Israel as intransigent and praise the Palestinians as victims regardless of the facts. There will be no breast-beating NYT op-eds about how Palestinians missed another opportunity for peace, about how they continue to support violence, about how they have been intransigent and consistently rejected any progress towards an end to the conflict.

The facts don't matter.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

"Free Palestine" movement: "Zionists" control the world and are responsible for millions of deaths

I received this nonsensical email from the "Free Palestine" movement.:

On June 8th, 1967, with cold-blooded mass murder as the objective, Israeli warplanes and warships made every effort to sink the USS Liberty, a mostly unarmed US intelligence vessel off the coast of Gaza, and to kill all 294 on board. Thanks only to the heroism of the Liberty crew and possibly a Soviet vessel's offer of assistance (refused), the attack was called off before completion, although the attackers had plenty of reason to think that the sea would do the rest of the job for them.

Twice, US warplanes from the US Sixth Fleet responded to distress calls from the Liberty, only to be recalled by direct order of the White House and the US Department of Defense. In retrospect, it is clear that Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara in turn got their orders from the Israel Lobby and the Israeli leadership. 34 were killed and 174 wounded, with many permanently disabled.

The subsequent coverup, the suppression of investigation, the falsification of evidence, the manipulation of history and the denial of justice to loyal US servicemen on board is now well documented and readily available to all who wish to see (which many do not). Nevertheless, the attack continues to this day, with Israeli and US resources devoted to maintaining a variety of false and often conflicting narratives to hide the truth.

Of course, Israel's attack on liberty itself goes far beyond this one incident, however outrageous, arrogant, blatant and hideous it may be. Israel's owes its very existence to Plan D, a detailed and carefully prepared military strategy for depopulating Palestine of its non-immigrant Palestinian population and replacing it with immigrants in order to create a majority (and ultimately exclusive) Jewish state, according to a racist agenda. Since late 1947 (and even before) and up to the present, Palestinians have had and are still having many Liberty incidents, without benefit of a Sixth Fleet, recalled or not. It is clearly Israel's intention to continue until there are no Palestinians left in Palestine.

Liberty assaults are continuing in the US and other powerful countries, as well, as Israel and its Zionist interests in these countries wield sufficient power on their governments to bend military and political power to their ends. Thus it is no accident that US and western might has been used to destroy Israel's potential enemies and rivals in the region, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, and to bring to heel others, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf monarchies. The people of half the world are paying the price for Israel's ambitions, not least in countries like the US, whose military budgets swallow funds for infrastructure, health, and education, and create an ongoing supply of shattered veterans who are neglected by the very government they served.

But millions of people that have also been killed and tens of millions made refugees in the wars for Israel, for the purpose of weakening Israel's enemies, enabling Israel's capture of territory, the ongoing ethnic cleansing of populations that Israel considers undesirable, and confiscation of resources. By allying itself with the most destructive elements in the US and other countries it wishes to influence and manipulate, Israel is able to multiply its destructive capability far beyond its own borders.

We are all Palestinians. Israel is crushing us all, robbing us of our resources, our livelihood and our liberty. Fifty years on, let us remember and honor the crew of the USS Liberty, who paid a high price for liberty, never receiving proper remuneration. Let us also remind ourselves that we continue to pay this price.

I love how the article starts off pretending to defend US armed forces in the USS Liberty and ends off saying that the US military and its allies is just a tool of the evil Zionists who are responsible for millions of deaths worldwide.

This is barely disguised classic antisemitism. It is good to know that the leftist supporters of Palestinians are so blatant in their hate.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/07 Links Pt2: Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism; When will the Six-Day War finally end?

From Ian:

Alan M. Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism

In the United States, although there has been hard-right anti-Semitism for decades, the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Those on the left who support left-wing anti-Semites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really anti-Semites. "They are anti-Zionist" is the excuse du jour. Those on the right do essentially the same: "they are nationalists." Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that when analyzing and exposing these dangerous trends, a single standard of criticism must be directed at each.
Generally speaking, extreme right-wing anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe and among a relatively small group of "alt-right" Americans. But it also exists among those who self-identify as run-of-the-mill conservatives. Consider, for example, former presidential candidate and Reagan staffer, Pat Buchanan.
The list of Buchanan's anti-Jewish bigotry is exhaustive. Over the years, he has consistently blamed Jews for wide-ranging societal and political problems. In his criticism of the Iraq War, for example, Buchanan infamously quipped: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States." He then singled out for rebuke only Jewish political figures and commentators such as Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer and A.M. Rosenthal. Buchanan did not mention any of the vocal non-Jewish supporters of the war. Furthermore, Buchanan also said that "the Israeli lobby" would be responsible if President Obama decided to strike Iran, threatening that if it were to happen, "Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress" would face "backlash worldwide." Buchanan's sordid flirtation with Nazi revisionism is also well documented.
Meanwhile, on university campuses, the absurd concept of "intersectionality" -- which has become a code word for anti-Semitism -- is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist, Linda Sarsour -- who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation -- is a case in point. A co-organizer of the Women's March on Washington in January, she has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: "You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There's just no way around it." And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation) the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: "I wish I could take away their vaginas."
The irony is breathtaking. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour -- who is also a staunch supporter of trying to destroy Israel economically -- cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does.

Richard Landes: Caliphate Cogwar, Lethal, Own-Goal Journalism, and BDS

BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) is part and parcel of a wider cognitive war (cogwar) offensive against both Israel and the West. Cogwar is the main resort of the weak side in an asymmetrical conflict, whose task is to convince the enemy not to use its superior forces to resist attacks from the weaker side. While most asymmetric cogwar conflicts are defensive (chase out the imperialists), the Caliphate cogwar (see below), is an imperialist effort to invade and subject the far more powerful enemy, the modern, democratic West.
BDS pursues two major goals: stigmatizing Israel in the world community, and undermining the workings of a free academy in the West. This two goals strike at both major targets of Caliphate cogwar, Israel and Western democracies. It is based on weaponized false information (Pallywood), and its surprising success in enrolling Western “progressives,” illustrates the degree of disorientation current among Western thought leaders.
How disoriented must one be to look at the ME, where “human rights” don’t even exist in the Muslim-majority world, and blame Israel for the region’s woes because they have failed to provide more protection and human rights to a sworn enemy of both Israel and human rights. Without the disturbing receptivity of liberals and progressives in the West to the absurd portrayal of Israel as a particularly nasty case of human rights violations, BDS would rapidly fade.
This essay is less concerned with understanding BDS – a secondary phenomenon – than understanding from where BDS draws its strength by placing it within the larger context of a cogwar conducted against the West by Muslims who believe that Islam should replace the US/West as global hegemon. It describes the Caliphaters, and the invasive cogwar they wage against the West, and their strategy of using of anti-Zionism, assisted by Western lethal, own-goal journalism, to hit the West in its “soft underbelly.”

Matti Friedman: What the AP’s Collaboration With the Nazis Should Teach Us About Reporting the News

The report on WWII is an opportunity to look again at the automatic bias in favor of “access,” and to ask if things might not be done differently. In the case of Gaza, for example, is the right choice really to have staffers inside, when their reporting can be controlled by Hamas? Or would it be more productive for the AP and others news organizations to report from outside Gaza while working sources on the inside and making use of external players (Egyptian intelligence, Israeli intelligence, Palestinian reporters in the West Bank) to give a more accurate picture of events?
Or instead of paying for an illusory “bureau” in Pyongyang and getting in bed with Kim Jong-un, why not devote that money to hiring the most knowledgeable people in South Korea and developing information from dissidents, refugees, and spies, which, in expert hands—and there are plenty at the AP’s disposal—might actually be able to yield an approximation of the truth? While these solutions are far from perfect, they’re preferable from the standpoint of news-gathering. Credible information that is explicitly presented as incomplete is far better than a distorted picture presented as reality.
In 2017, consumers of news are beset as never before with a blizzard of disinformation. There is no alternative to mainstream news sources. No Twitter feed is going to replace The New York Times or the AP. And yet much information published in established sources is unreliable, sometimes for the reasons discussed here. Many flaws and misunderstandings have crept into journalistic practice over time, like the idea that it’s permissible to collaborate with dictatorships and obfuscate about it, or that telling half the story is better than leveling with readers and admitting that your hands are tied. This renders journalism vulnerable to the claim that there is no “fake news” because it’s all fake, anyway.
The people in charge at the AP were wrong in 1935. It matters today because they and their competitors are wrong now in similar ways. It’s a good time for journalists to think deeply about the ways the profession has failed—80 years ago, two years ago, last week—and about ways to better serve a world that badly needs us to do our job

"You're a liar," just doesn't have the same punch as the Hebrew "Atah shakran." The latter is like a dare, a pointing finger, as opposed to the former, which is simply a statement of fact.

That's one reason the film by Reservists on Duty countering the recorded testimony of Dean Issacharoff, spokesman of Breaking the Silence, was a breakaway hit. It was just so punchy. One reservist after the other calling Issacharoff a big fat liar to his face.

Nay! To the world.

Finally, someone was confronting those horrid Breaking the Silence lies about the IDF. And these were people who knew the truth. Take THAT, Breaking the Silence. Take THAT, Dean Issacharoff.

Yes. There was glee in watching that clip and even more so in watching it go viral.

Breaking the Silence, you see, pretends to care about injustice. But what it really aims to do is take down the State of Israel by rendering its army powerless. They do that by getting people to lie about the things they did while in the army. Most of those who "testify" do so "anonymously," so there's no way to check the record to see if these misdeeds actually occurred and since the details are spotty or the stories old, there's no way for the army to investigate.

When Issacharoff went public, on the other hand, he must have thought he could get away with it: that no one would challenge his bogus tale of woe. Issacharoff ~~came out~~ testified at a protest rally. He said his commanding officer made him tie up and beat an Arab prisoner while his fellow soldiers looked on. “I grabbed him by the neck and started to knee him in the face and chest until he was bleeding and unconscious,” said Issacharoff.

Happily for us, Issacharoff grossly underestimated the patriotism of his peers and just how far they would be willing to go to expose his lies. He probably thought he could just get away with making stuff up about his army service.

And he's probably none too bright.

And a vile human being who hates his own people.

Imagine: his entire platoon, now all reservists, bothered themselves to make a film in which every last one of them publicly decry him a liar.

So good. So rich.

Now, one month later, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has approached Justice Avichai Mandelblit to request an investigation into Issacharoff's claims. After all, we have his recorded testimony that the guy beat up an Arab during his military service and that's a crime. "Breaking the Silence spokesman stands up and says that he himself committed a crime against a Palestinian and beat him up. If it really happened, he should be investigated and punished. If the incident did not happen, then the state should say officially that it did not happen," said Shaked in an interview with Galei Tzahal.

It's a wonderful thing that we now have a name and a face to investigate and it's amazing that Shaked had the gumption to do the right thing. Now we have a way to show up Breaking the Silence for what it is: an instrument for harming the State of Israel and its people. It's an incredible development that cannot be undervalued in its ability to shore up the reputation of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Democratic State of Israel. We have nothing to apologize for in our treatment of the Arab people in our midst. And now we can prove it.

Other voices, such as that of this author's husband, disagree. He says that Shaked is making a mistake. That these liberal agitators are dying to have a case go to court, because, as he says, "it sets a precedent and legitimizes them," so they can keep on bringing cases to court and making Israel look bad. He says this sort of lawfare will spread to other countries that will then try to prosecute Israeli civilians who have formerly served in the IDF, for instance.

It could be as he says, I suppose. But it seems like we have this public admission and we absolutely MUST pursue the truth and do justice. As the Torah says, "Tzedek, tzedek tirdof," Justice, justice, you shall pursue.

It can only be good.

It should be said that it wasn't easy for Ayelet Shaked to snag the role of Minister of Justice. But once she got it, many Israelis had high hopes she'd make a difference in reforming the justice system. The Supreme Court has too much power in Israel. Not only does it overreach, but the bench is filled with liberal justices in a country that voted for a right-wing government.

So clear is it that the court does not represent the will of the Israeli people that Shaked's appointment was like a tall drink on a long, hot day. It gave people hope. That's in spite of the knowledge that she's got an uphill climb. The courts system is entrenched and it is powerful. It isn't going to change quickly or with ease.

Just now, for instance, Shaked lost a battle. Justice Miriam Naor, President of the Supreme Court, is retiring and wanted Esther Hayut to be appointed in her stead. Shaked would have liked to find a candidate who would balance the overwhelmingly liberal demographic of the court, but no qualified judge dared to challenge Hayut's candidacy. There simply wasn't anyone else.

In spite of this failure, Shaked continues to inspire, just now with her initiation of this investigation into Dean Issacharoff's claims of brutality. Will there be a happy ending here? Or will this current feeling of hope be as good as it gets?

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Moderate Cannibals Feeling Pressure To Disavow Extremists (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Beirut, June 7 - Community leaders among those who consume human flesh in a moderate fashion complain that they are being unfairly targeted by critics of the practice who lump them together with more radical perpetrators.

Moderate cannibals face unjust pressure from politicians, the media, and advocacy groups, the leaders contend, even though the ideology of the moderate cannibals in no way supports the activities of extreme cannibals. At a joint press conference of several cannibal community organizations, the spokespeople for the groups called on the public to distinguish between them and extreme cannibals, or risk alienating the moderates and driving them into the arms of the extreme followers of the practice.

A coalition of grassroots cannibal groups called the Federation of Levantine Eaters of Succulent Humans (FLESH) assembled the press conference this afternoon and called on the news media, especially in the West, not to paint all cannibals with the same broad brush.

"It is irresponsible at best, and outright destructive at worst, to group all cannibals together," insisted Waleed Aniwan, head of the Khaneh-Ümraniye "Recycling" Union (KURU), which brings together moderate cannibals from Iran and Turkey, where the cities of Khaneh and Ümraniye, respectively, are located. "Our doctrines and practices have nothing to do with the barbaric crimes committed by extremist cannibals. In fact we deny that what those monsters are doing is cannibalism at all."

Other speakers stressed the responsibility of the media to convey to the world at large the great diversity among cannibals. "Journalists and commentators in particular must take care not to portray the heinous acts of the extremists as reflecting on the vast majority of peaceful cannibals," explained Soylent Green, a volunteer with FLESH. "And of course it could not hurt objectivity and balance to provide some attention to the grievances the extreme cannibals may have that lead to this sort of behavior."

Critics noted that the press conference and similar events represent an effort to absolve moderate cannibals of responsibility for the extremist behavior inherent to the lifestyle. "It is disingenuous to claim the heinous acts of extreme cannibals have nothing to do with cannibalism," argued Donner Parti, a vocal opponent of cannibalism. "The same groups that produce the so-called moderates end up producing the extremists as well, and there has to be a much more prominent, sincere, and sustained campaign by these so-called 'moderate' cannibals to dissociate from the extremists. The whole denial and abrogation of responsibility is a little too much to swallow."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/07 Links Pt1: Amnesty International calls for boycott of settlement goods; Ambassador Haley, the modern Moynihan

From Ian:

Amnesty International calls for boycott of settlement goods

Amnesty International launched a campaign Wednesday to press the international community to boycott goods produced in Israeli West Bank settlements.
Timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six Day War, the campaign also calls on states to stop their companies from operating in settlements.
“For decades, the world has stood by as Israel has destroyed Palestinians’ homes and plundered their land and natural resources for profit. While the Palestinian economy has been stunted by 50 years of abusive policies, a thriving multi-million dollar settlement enterprise has been built out of the systematic oppression of the Palestinian population,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s secretary-general.
Jewish settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines are viewed by most international leaders as illegal. Israel disputes this, as there was no legal sovereign there prior to its taking control, and claims a historical tie to the biblical Judea and Samaria.
“Fifty years on, merely condemning Israel’s settlement expansion is not enough. It’s time for states to take concrete international action to stop the financing of settlements which themselves flagrantly violate international law and constitute war crimes,” Shetty said.

2016: UN approves blacklist of companies profiting from settlements

32 nations vote in favor; 15 abstain; none oppose
The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday voted in favor of creating a “blacklist” of companies operating in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a motion that passed with no countries voting against.
The resolution required UN human rights officials to produce a database of “all business enterprises” that have enabled or profited from the growth of Israeli settlements, Haaretz reported.
The proposal, put forward by the Palestinian Authority and Arab states, included a condemnation of settlements and called on companies not to do business with Israeli settlements.
Its most contested clause was that calling for the formation of the database. While European Union nations opposed the creation of the list, they did not vote against the resolution, electing merely to abstain. It passed with 32 nations voting in favor and 15 abstentions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the outcome of the vote Thursday evening, saying the international body “has turned into an anti-Israel circus, which attacks the only democracy in the Middle East and ignores the blatant violations of Iran, Syria and North Korea.”
The prime minister accused the council of ignoring more urgent issues such as terrorism in order to rebuke the Jewish state.

Douglas Murray: The great Sunni-Shia conflict is getting ever closer to the surface

Several people have been killed in a terrorist attack in Iran today, with Isis claiming responsibility. This has potentially huge consequences for the wider Shia-Sunni conflict. In 2014, Douglas Murray wrote for the Spectator on Islam’s 30-year war. His piece seems particularly prescient in light of today’s events:
Syria has fallen apart. Major cities in Iraq have fallen to al-Qa’eda. Egypt may have stabilised slightly after a counter-coup. But Lebanon is starting once again to fragment. Beneath all these facts — beneath all the explosions, exhortations and blood — certain themes are emerging.
Some years ago, before the Arab ‘Spring’ ever sprung, I remember asking one top security official about the region. What, I wondered, was their single biggest fear? The answer was striking and precise: ‘That the region will clarify.’ That is a fear which now appears to be coming true.
The Middle East is not simply falling apart. It is taking a different shape, along very clear lines — far older ones than those the western powers rudely imposed on the region nearly a century ago. Across the whole continent those borders are in the process of cracking and breaking. But while that happens the region’s two most ambitious centres of power — the house of Saud and the Ayatollahs in Iran — find themselves fighting each other not just for influence but even, perhaps, for survival.